My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
E
>
E
>
103
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0544638
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2019 11:14:41 PM
Creation date
7/9/2019 1:34:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
FILE 2
RECORD_ID
PR0544638
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0004027
FACILITY_NAME
HENDRIX FORK LIFT INC
STREET_NUMBER
103
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
E
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
15318001
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
103 N E ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i• ` <br /> l� ernoranduM 40e <br /> s� <br /> CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD • CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 Routier Road Phone: (916) 361-5600 <br /> Sacramento, CA 95827-3098 ATSS: 8-495-5600 <br /> TO: Antonia K. J. Vorster FROM: Gary A. Reents <br /> Senior Engineer Project Engineer <br /> DATE: 17 June 1987 SIGNATURE: <br /> SUBJECT: SOIL AND GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT REPORT, TEIC#IERT CORPORATION, <br /> STOCKTON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> I have reviewed the subject report, dated 27 April 1987, prepared by Kleinfelder <br /> and Associates. My comments are as follows: <br /> 1. The soil contamination contours delineated on Plates 27 through 49 are not <br /> realistic. The vertical profiles show the zero contour at or near the <br /> water table which is contradictory to the data. The horizontal contour <br /> maps are more the result of analyzing different samples at different depths <br /> than of actual contamination differences. <br /> Looking at the raw data, it appears that the horizontal and vertical <br /> extent of contamination has been adequately defined. The interpretation of <br /> this data was simply overextended. <br /> 2. The statement that excavation of contaminated soil below 16 feet is not <br /> cost-effective is not supported. Although I agree that approximately 75% <br /> of the total mass of contamination is in the upper 16 feet, the concentra- <br /> tions and total mass of concentrations in the soils below 16 feet is still <br /> significant. The entire source (contaminated soils) of ground water <br /> pollution must be mitigated, especially since ground water levels are <br /> already significantly above State Action Levels. <br /> 3. Samples from all three monitoring wells installed contain levels of <br /> contaminants exceeding State Action Levels. As a result, the ground water <br /> work should change from a determination phase to a delineation phase. This <br /> should include, as a minimum: <br /> a. Identification and sampling of private wells surrounding the site <br /> (both up- and downgradient) for public health protection. <br /> b. Collection of information for private wells identified in Comment 3.a <br /> above ( total depths, screened intervals, pumping capacity, pumping <br /> schedule, etc. ) and assessment of the information to determine the <br /> potential affect of nearby wells on on--site ground water flow <br /> directions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.